Is this the boasting you speak of?[/quote]Maybe a weak, but semi-elaborate trolling attempt.[/quote]

This is my post, and it is not trolling at all. It is true. Because the girl that goes to the same school as me, her CV popped up on my "ppl you may know." Also, I have no relation to the person who posted this, we just have similar circumstances.

And as I have previously stated in this thread, a solution. Your letters of recs from professors should talk about your academic involvement (clubs, volunteering). Maybe your club had an academic advisor, ask them for a letter of rec. Also, some professors will ask you for a resume or CV before writing a letter of rec, I know several of my professors do that. However, if they don't ask for a resume or CV it still doesn't hurt to hand them one when you ask for a letter of rec.[/quote]you're still not in the clear, because your rival's LORs may also describe them as club president. if this occurs, LSAC will flag the discrepancy in your file and initiate an interference proceeding. basically, you each have 60 days to provide additional proof (e.g., signed declarations from faculty/admins at your school, or other members of the club, or other documentation that may prove your case) along with an appeal brief. a three judge panel reviews the submissions and delivers a ruling on who gets to claim the president role. in some cases, the panel may recommend an in-person hearing, but this is very uncommon.[/quote]

There was a lot of rules in order to be president of this specific club, that only presidents knew, therefore stating "club president" on a resume or cv would not give credit unless you state you are president of another organization—it's very confusing. Basically if you are president of this specific club you are automatic president of something else. Not to mention both my LORs discuss how I started the club at our school. I really do not have a problem if LSAC needs more documentation regarding discrepancy because I have all the documentation. A signed declaration of faculty, that is basically my LORs. I know the girl pretending to be president will not have any LORs stating she was president, and because our school is so small she will more than likely have the same professors write her that are writing me. We have a really small department.

andreasmommy wrote:This same thing happened to me. I was president of this club that another girl was claiming presidency of, and she too posted it on LINKEDIN. Her and I are both applying for the same cycle also.

Your solution is simple: Your professors that write your letters of rec should address your academic career (being president of whatever clubs) and any other activities you were apart of. GIve them your CV before they write your letters.

My letters of rec are addressing everything I was academically involved in, and also my internships and volunteer stuff. So if that girl puts the same info as me, law schools will know she is lying.

Are situation is similar but a little different. I already have my LORs lined up. One is from a volunteer thing I've done for a long time (so work I guess). Another is a lecturer. (I wrote above this in an earlier post).

I'm pretty sure when they wrote the LOR, they didn't include any of these activities, and instead focused on stuff I did in the position they knew me as (volunteer, student in lecture, etc).

There was a faculty advisor, but I barely knew him. I suppose he could write a letter saying "I was the FA, And kate was president, etc" but it would be a generic, possibly even more damaging letter, than a glowing one from the director of an organization where I volunteered for a long time.

Do you have any professors that are familiar with the work you did with the club?

fatduck wrote:you're still not in the clear, because your rival's LORs may also describe them as club president. if this occurs, LSAC will flag the discrepancy in your file and initiate an interference proceeding. basically, you each have 60 days to provide additional proof (e.g., signed declarations from faculty/admins at your school, or other members of the club, or other documentation that may prove your case) along with an appeal brief. a three judge panel reviews the submissions and delivers a ruling on who gets to claim the president role. in some cases, the panel may recommend an in-person hearing, but this is very uncommon.

fatduck wrote:you're still not in the clear, because your rival's LORs may also describe them as club president. if this occurs, LSAC will flag the discrepancy in your file and initiate an interference proceeding. basically, you each have 60 days to provide additional proof (e.g., signed declarations from faculty/admins at your school, or other members of the club, or other documentation that may prove your case) along with an appeal brief. a three judge panel reviews the submissions and delivers a ruling on who gets to claim the president role. in some cases, the panel may recommend an in-person hearing, but this is very uncommon.

I thought you were serious for like a good 15 seconds. Well played, sir.

fatduck wrote:you're still not in the clear, because your rival's LORs may also describe them as club president. if this occurs, LSAC will flag the discrepancy in your file and initiate an interference proceeding. basically, you each have 60 days to provide additional proof (e.g., signed declarations from faculty/admins at your school, or other members of the club, or other documentation that may prove your case) along with an appeal brief. a three judge panel reviews the submissions and delivers a ruling on who gets to claim the president role. in some cases, the panel may recommend an in-person hearing, but this is very uncommon.

I thought you were serious for like a good 15 seconds. Well played, sir.